A Kano High Court has nullified the revocation of a property owned by Tiamin Multi-Services Global Limited, an action executed by the Kano State Government under the administration of the immediate past governor, Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje.

The ex-governor ordered the demolition of a multi-million naira property owned by the private firm six years ago, having revoked the Certificate of Occupancy of the property under urgent public interest.

Although Ganduje had reconstructed new classroom blocks on the disputed land, located along Court Road in Gyadi Gyadi, Tarauni Local Government Area, the said structure has remained empty even before his administration terminated.

Dissatisfied with Ganduje’s action, the private firm, through its counsel, Saidu Muhammad Tudun Wada, sued the state government and two others, demanding return of the property, validation of the Certificate of Occupancy, and damages for the illegal action constituted by the then administration.

In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice Ibrahim Musa Muhammadu granted an order of special damages against the governor and the state government for illegal demolition of property belonging to Tiamin Multi-Services Global Limited.

Justice Muhammadu held that the demolition without prior notice was wrong, insisting the revocation of the C-of-O possessed by the private firm remains a nullity. The court subsequently awarded the sum of N2.6 billion as compensation and damages against the Kano State Government.

“N2.125 million granted as general damages, N500 million naira for what it called ‘the uncouth, unwarranted, unlawful and illegal conduct of the defendants in taking over and demolishing the structures of the plaintiff’, and the sum of N10 million naira as cost of filing the case, after restraining
the defendants from “ever interfering with his possession, occupation, use and enjoyment” of the property.

“The demolition of the multi-million naira structure without giving it due and valid notice as well as an opportunity of being heard as to the reasons for the revocation of its Certificate of Occupancy, if at all, is unconstitutional and contrary to the provision of the Land Use Act and therefore illegal, null, void, and of no legal effect whatsoever.

“The purported revocation of the plaintiff’s right of occupancy, without notice at all, is unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever.

The Certificates of Occupancy—LKN/COM/2017/116 (recertified as LPKN 1188), MLKN01622, and MLKN01837—remain valid and subsisting, affirming the company’s lawful ownership of the land,” Justice Muhammadu ordered.